I will add to the voices of the developers you are talking to - lenders (& tenants) need parking. Its unfortunate but the truth. 1.5 / dwelling and 2 / 1,000 SF seem reasonable (could get away with lowering the latter MAYBE) but setting a maximum any lower than that is constraining the market. You might be able to save $$$ on the front end but if you can't lease the building (one of the first questions tenants ask is how much parking) you can't make any $$ on the back-end.

Totally agree on the height issue. Really should be unlimited within 1/4 mi. only exception being height lines from adjacent resi. Edit: looking at the draft ordinance I like how there is an incentive system for height (good behavior on uses = more height) but the base or incentive values could be higher not sure what the implied max would be.

I disagree wholeheartedly. 1.5 per dwelling is fitting for Waverly, not 1/4 of a mile from a transit station. We aren't building a transit system for fun, we are building it so people aren't as reliant on their car, and to build mobility.

Edited August 28, 2018 by ricky_davis_fan_21

5

2

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

It seems backassward to me to make the UDO suit the needs to underwriters. It really should be the other way around. I think Southend shows that there is huge demand for urban (semi) density. If some financiers want to not participate in that it’s fine, others will.

Link to post

Share on other sites

I think most zoning in NC came about in the 1950s. I just tried to find the exact date, and couldn't find it. There was a fair amount of traditional development constructed in the 1920s 1930s and 1940s.

"In Raleigh, the elegant Green Square parking structure illustrates the art of the possible when the will to be sustainable merges with a budget level that supports the added green features. ... Green Square uses several design strategies such as a facade of vertical aluminum fins, recycled and recyclable, and a large cistern that stores rainwater for irrigation at the State Capitol and neighboring state-owned grounds. A solar array of photo-voltaic panels hovers above the entire top level of parking and doubles as a sunshade. Some of its energy goes directly to the office building; the leftover is sold to Duke Energy where it goes into the power grid. The third party that has supplied and installed the array receives reimbursement from Duke along with tax incentives. The result is enough energy to power 3,000 homes a year. "

"Last month 08/2018), as part of a roll-out for zoning reforms to transit oriented districts (TODs), Monica Holmes of Charlotte's Planning, Design and Development Dept. recommended to an advisory committee a requirement that decks in the most intense TOD locations be designed as adaptive reuse structures. The advisory committee – a healthy mix of architects, developers, private sector planners and citizen activists – serves as a sounding board for a new Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) that is expected to replace the antiquated city-wide zoning code. The basic idea is to make sure floors are flat and ceiling heights are raised to allow conversion to civic, office, retail, housing or other uses in the future. That is easier said than done, because those and other necessary changes can add appreciably to construction costs. To date there are only a few instanceswhere adaptive reuse decks have been built or are in the pipeline in other U.S. cities, most notably the decks planned for the Massachusetts Convention Center Authority in Boston. Make no mistake. Parking decks are now being viewed through a different lens. Whether Charlotte decision-makers support adaptive reuse for parking decks in the new TOD zoning should be decided in the coming months, as the TOD sections of the city’s new development ordinance move forward for approval by the Charlotte City Council."

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I am new to this site but would like to comment on all the existing and new parking structures that are being built in the city. I feel that with the UDO still years out Charlotte has stunted any future possibility of creating a transit and pedestrian neighborhoods. Even once the UDO is passed there will still be the hundreds of parking structures that people will find more convenient to use because they are there. Why can't they go ahead and pass new parking ordinances to limit this in the future now? Why wouldn't they want to apply the parking rules outside of the 1/4 mile TOD area to neighborhood centers and uptown as a whole? Plaza Midwood, for example, would have been a great addition since it already has a decent pedestrian vibe. All the new apartments would have been great without the additional parking decks especially since the gold line will soon connect to the area.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Just read the Charlotte Magazine article about it and is very interesting and controversial. My feelings are mixed on it but One thing I do wish is for the 'Dillion Rule' in NC to be relaxed. Seems like the General Assembly has a total strangle hold on NC Municipalities. I envy the looser system that MN has so if major City/Counties want to do things for their locality they are free to do so, with the people's vote.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

What is the next input event in the UDO process? Any council discussions planned on the horizon, too?

They are going to keep working on some details of the UDO behind the scenes, but the main public input will be on the Strategic Vision Plan for the next 16mo or so, and then cycle back to the UDO with the input from the Vision Plan.

You can also email the planning director, directly (he has offered up his contact info at many opportunities, and joked that he's the only one in the city with just his first name as his email address) [email protected]

1

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Nice Charlotte Magazine piece on the Minneapolis decision to eliminate single family zoning and parking minimums and some discussion of how the UDO might nudge us in that direction (but don't expect radical changes)

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I'm a bit impatient because the zoning code in the historic neighborhoods isn't 10 years out of date, it's at least fifty years out of date. They dumped 'eager beaver' suburban zoning on street-car neighborhoods and frozen them in time.

I wanted to build a four-plex in a neighborhood that's a five minute walk from a light rail station and a little less than a mile from the down-town core. Planning department came back after the 'pre-proposal' and said it would be inappropriate to the character of the single family neighborhood.

Two blocks from there, they got TOD lots that allow six story condo buildings that can be built by right. There's no balance in the zoning code.

I look at small lots in these neighborhood, decide it's not worth it because their all zoned R-5 or R-8. Home builder comes in and drops a 400-500K home. Mortgages are approaching 3,000$. There's not going to be a middle class in these neighborhoods by 2040. Their zoning code helps dictate this.

Do we think any of these could ever be applied to bus transit routes in appropriate spots? I am thinking Central Ave in PM, Belmont Ave, and FreeMoreWest in general.
I imagine that would be entirely up to the case the developer makes versus the community push-back?

1

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Do we think any of these could ever be applied to bus transit routes in appropriate spots? I am thinking Central Ave in PM, Belmont Ave, and FreeMoreWest in general.
I imagine that would be entirely up to the case the developer makes versus the community push-back?

Anything zoned TOD now will be automatically transferred to the new TOD zoning. The current plan is that non-TOD properties along the entire blue line and gold line will be blanket rezoned to the new TOD, too. It was unclear how bullish they could get rezoning rail future corridors.

Based on the intent of the different TOD densities, I think the densest TODs would only be appropriate along rail lines. The less dense TODs, though, I could easily see being applied to high use bus areas, or clustered around major stops.

2

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Do we think any of these could ever be applied to bus transit routes in appropriate spots? I am thinking Central Ave in PM, Belmont Ave, and FreeMoreWest in general.
I imagine that would be entirely up to the case the developer makes versus the community push-back?

New development rules would help write the TOD future of University City, an area that's been largely developed with suburban uses that now has mass transit running through it. Photo: MELISSA KEY

CBJ Excerpts: "The proposed text amendment with the TOD ordinance, which has been revised multiple times, will go before Charlotte City Council at Monday's zoning meeting for its public hearing. "Joe Padilla, executive director of real estate trade association REBIC, said the TOD ordinance has come a long way since the beginning and that his group is largely in support of the policy as it is today. Padilla said REBIC is still recommending a handful of changes as well as a delay for adoption until early 2020 so that those who have invested in TOD corridors more recently can better transition. A letter by Padilla submitted to City Council this week expresses a desire to see more flexibility for building height in transit corridors. With the new ordinance, the city is introducing a height bonus for TOD districts — if a developer seeks to build taller than the by-right maximum height (expected to be increased to 130 feet in the most intense district, TOD-UC), he or she would have to add features from a menu, such as additional open space, sustainability elements or affordable housing. Alternately, the developer could pay a fee ($4.25 per square foot above the maximum height) that would be funneled into the city's Housing Trust Fund, the primary funding bucket at the city for building or preserving affordable housing. Padilla told the CBJ that one suggestion to provide flexibility is to allow a variance for "unique circumstances" when it comes to building taller than what's allowed by-right in certain districts. In that scenario, a developer would follow a conventional rezoning much like they would do today, with a public hearing, neighborhood meetings and a vote by City Council. "We’re asking for an alternate approach," Padilla said. "If they have a project that’s unique, like a major corporate headquarters for Charlotte, they can come in, go in, make that case before council about why they should be allowed to go higher, and build 25 stories on top of a transit center." ... "Todd Mansfield, CEO of Crescent Communities, also submitted a letter to City Council, indicating the proposed TOD ordinance is "an important first step" but highlighting similar concerns about height. ... "Mansfield noted that while affordable housing, inclusion of small and minority-owned business, innovation, transportation options and energy efficiency are all important issues that Crescent Communities "leads in proudly," the firm would like to see more ways to achieve height in the new policy." "... we feel that introducing more avenues, such as direct access to Council to achieve height, and therefore transit-supportive density, is a way to incent and encourage great development adjacent to and complementary of our transit corridors," Mansfield wrote." ... "Grubb Properties, too, submitted a letter in support of the ordinance, highlighting in particular a proposed elimination of parking minimums. Parking today is one of the most expensive parts of most real estate developments — though still a necessary component to building most projects, critics have called for changes in parking along the transit corridor, especially for sites that are immediately adjacent to stations in densifying areas like South End." "(The parking minimum) change will actually benefit renters and residents by making rents more accessible," said Clay Grubb, CEO of Grubb Properties, in the letter." ... "Shannon Binns, Executive Director of community non-profit Sustain Charlotte, who submitted a letter to council on behalf of Sustain Charlotte this week, also signaled support for the changes made in the TOD policy over parking. More broadly, his organization supports new rules that discourage or outright ban auto-oriented uses like gas stations and drive-thru restaurants in transit corridors, which today are seen frequently along the Blue Line — sometimes right across the street from a station." "Binns' letter highlights the potential for the new ordinance to make transit use, walking and cycling attractive and safe. It also praised the height bonus options, including affordable housing, transportation improvements and "climate-friendly" actions like on-site renewable energy generation and energy-efficient buildings." "Sustain Charlotte believes these new standards will stimulate long-term economic vitality in the city’s existing and future transit corridors through better design, with more predictable results and with greater flexibility and transparency," Binns wrote." "The elimination of parking minimums also opens the door to making TOD developments less reliant on cars, Binns told the CBJ."

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Interesting that after working with the city and applauding the process, the developers want to change the height restrictions in TOD districts and bypass the planners and go straight to the council (something the UDO is actively trying to avoid happening in the first place)... Two letters, one from Crescent and one from the REIBC.

2

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Interesting that after working with the city and applauding the process, the developers want to change the height restrictions in TOD districts and bypass the planners and go straight to the council (something the UDO is actively trying to avoid happening in the first place)... Two letters, one from Crescent and one from the REIBC.

Yes - I find that frustrating, too. The whole point is to get the council out of the rezoning business.